Author: gerold daniels
Date: 15:24:12 07/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2005 at 14:28:30, Terry Giles wrote: >On July 01, 2005 at 14:05:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On July 01, 2005 at 13:41:05, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >> >>>On July 01, 2005 at 09:18:09, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>Since my perfect chessmachine ROLF played only 75% of the HYDRA moves against >>>>Adams, you can see how far away HYDRA is still from perfect play. That is why >>>>it's still making sense if more GM play show events. >>> >>>It's a path near to perfect, perfection is a "chimera" , but it's stronger than >>>strongest humans listening to Mr. Adams words...that is why it's so damn >>>difficult to beat: >>> >>>From Adams interview at chessbase >>>... >>>"I think it proves that Hydra is a much stronger ‘player’ than any other >>>computer in the world. We may not be able to measure its strength in Elo, but it >>>is huge. I also suspect Hydra is stronger than any other human opponent. Okay, >>>it has to be proved in the future, but this is my impression at the moment and I >>>suspect it is accurate. I mean from my point of view I don’t think I played >>>terribly. I did my best and it just wasn’t good enough." >>> >>> >>>w.b.r. >>>Otello >> >> >>Hi Otello, >> >>what Adams says in the interview is under the medication of 10000 he got for his >>draw. Adams doesn't know the computerchess world. Certainly he never heard of my >>perfect chess machine. >> >>Debating the Elo of HYDRA doesn't make sense because it hasn't played much games >>yet. On playchesscom HYDRA wasn't successful at all. Now you cannot begin to >>calculate the Elo for - say - Sturday night or Monday. Elo is either for the >>whole of it or nothing. >> >>If a human chessplayer had beaten Adams with 5,5 to 0,5 THEN this human >>chessplayer had a tremendous Elo performance. But if you let Adams play a 6 >>games showevent against HYDRA, a completely unknown machine, and then calculate >>Elo number with human touch so to speak. There is no such number. >> >>My tiny little program ROLF has Elo of over 30000, because it won all the games >>it played. No wonder because it plays perfect chess with its 640 processors! >> >>That should give you a light impression of the power of my program. HYDRA and DB >>and all the rest are millions of lightyears below - because as you know Elo >>can't be calculated with basic retangular maths. So a three times stronger >>player cant claim Elo 6000 if it has beaten a 2000 player. Know what I mean?! >> >>Elo 30 000 (In words thirty thousand) is as if you would leave the solar system >>of this universe and enter new worlds, so to speak. I hope I could clarify a >>bit. >> >>Rolf, Actually from Outer Space > > >Hi Rolf, > >Working within the domain of unrestrained analytic pan-dimensional quantum >hyper-maths and utilising Carol Vordermanian normalising vector indices I >recently evaluated that the maximum theoretically attainable elo value to be >somewhere in the region of 29700 +/- 200. I therefore regrettably, have to >harbour some doubt as to the veracity of your claim. > >Terry (a bipedal carbon based life form) > >;-) i think your tolerance of +/- 200 i a little on the high side. gerold.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.